4 ms·
I don’t disagree with any of this as it is pretty much Finance 101. But what I feel like this sort of analysis tends to lack, is that the markets have always b
by oxymoran 5y ago
I don’t disagree with any of this as it is pretty much Finance 101. But what I feel like this sort of analysis tends to lack, is that the markets have always been decoupled from “reality”. The only difference is that, historically, there were less retail investors and more professional traders. These pros shared a consensus reality regarding valuation etc. But at the end of the day, the price of the stock has always been based on the supply and demand of the asset which can have absolutely no connection to the actual performance the underlying company. Think about it, a stock price rises or falls based on people buying and selling the stock. That typically happens when there is news about company performance but there is no direct correlation between company performance and stock price. If we all decided we actually value poor performing companies, their stock price would be through the roof, a la Tesla. It’s all smoke and mirrors, and it always has been.
- deepsun 5y agoIt's not _all_ smoke and mirrors, but only on the low level of P/E ratios. E.g. companies paying dividends -- if company has no money, it won't pay dividends, so the stock goes down. But if investors see dividends as a good income source, then the stock price goes up. But that only works with dividend-paying stocks, obviously.
- enjoy-your-stay 5y agoWell, that was all good up until the point that CDS's exposed the Ratings Agencies as corrupt, and LIBOR imploded, again due to corruption.